Special Companies Act procedure excludes BNSS pre-cognizance hearing in SFIO prosecutions before the Special Court.

A special procedural scheme under the Companies Act, 2013 governs SFIO prosecutions, including investigation, complaint, cognizance and charge. Section 212(15) was treated as deeming the SFIO report to be a police report, and Section 436(1)(d) as permitting the Special Court to take cognizance on that basis without any additional pre-cognizance hearing. Section 223 BNSS, 2023 was held applicable to complaint cases before a Magistrate and not importable into SFIO proceedings before the Special Court. The special statute prevails over the general procedural law, so the claimed pre-cognizance safeguard does not apply.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office under the Companies Act, 2013 requires a pre-cognizance hearing under the first proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Special Court takes cognizance.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Companies Act, 2013 was held to provide a distinct and self-contained procedure for investigation, filing of complaint, cognizance and framing of charge in prosecutions initiated by the SFIO. Section 212(15) was construed as creating a legal fiction that the SFIO investigation report is to be treated as a police report for the purposes contemplated by the Act, and Section 436(1)(d) was read as enabling the Special Court to take cognizance on the complaint or police report without any additional pre-cognizance hearing. The Court held that Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies to complaint cases before a Magistrate and cannot be imported into SFIO prosecutions before the Special Court in view of the special procedure under the Companies Act, 2013. The judgment also held that the special statute prevails over the general procedural law to the extent of any inconsistency and that the distinction urged between private complaints and SFIO prosecutions justified exclusion of the claimed pre-cognizance safeguard.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no right to a pre-cognizance hearing in the SFIO prosecution, and the challenge to the order refusing such hearing failed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution under the Companies Act, 2013 was held to proceed under the special statutory mechanism without application of the pre-cognizance notice requirement, and the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a complete procedural scheme and deems the SFIO investigation report to be a police report, the general pre-cognizance hearing provision applicable to complaint cases under the BNSS does not apply before the Special Court.

---